Housman v. Ludeman

Background

The case had been stayed for more than a decade while the court waited for judgment in a related proceeding. After judgment was entered in that proceeding, the court lifted the stay. Steven A. Housman had been a member of the class in the earlier proceeding, and the court stated that claim preclusion—the rule that can bar relitigation of matters already resolved—might partly prevent litigation of some claims in this case.

When the stay was imposed, defendants had a pending motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Housman also had a pending motion for more time to respond. After the stay was lifted, Housman filed a motion asking the court not to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.

Rulings on the Motions

The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice because the legal circumstances had changed and the earlier related proceeding might affect some claims. Defendants were ordered to file an amended motion to dismiss or another responsive pleading within 90 days of the order.

The court denied Housman’s motion for an extension of time as moot because the motion to dismiss had been denied without prejudice. The court granted Housman’s motion asking that the action not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Filing-Fee Requirement

Although Housman had received permission to proceed without paying the full filing fee upfront, the court determined that he qualified as a “prisoner” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act when he commenced the case. The court relied on the fact that he was detained and was then accused of criminal offenses in Minnesota state court. As a result, he was required to pay the $350 statutory filing fee in installments, including an initial partial filing fee, even if he ultimately succeeded in the case.

Because the passage of time made the original financial information difficult to obtain, the court gave Housman three options: provide financial records from the six months before he filed the case; provide financial records from the six months before the order; or pay an initial partial filing fee of $20, calculated from the amount he had reported having when he began the case.

Housman had 21 days from the order to pay at least $20 or submit the required financial information. The court stated that failure to do so would result in dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute. It also stated that the remaining balance of the $350 filing fee would be collected through later installments from his facility trust account, regardless of whether he succeeded in the action.

Disposition

The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, denied Housman’s motion for an extension as moot, granted Housman’s motion not to dismiss the action, imposed the filing-fee requirement, and set deadlines for Housman and defendants.